About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Cohen 4, Olage 4, Us 4, Panama 3, Mr. Gibner 3, Caltrans 3, San Francisco 3, Miller 3, Niantic 2, Wiener 2, Mr. Kwan 2, The City 2, Mr. Tom Gianella 1, Christianson 1, Mr. Christianson 1, Mark Christianson 1, Dbi 1, Lee 1, Eric Mar 1, Dpw 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    December 8, 2012
    6:00 - 6:30am PST  

6:00am
. >> good afternoon, everyone, this is the monday, december 3, 2012 meeting of the land use and economic development committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. my name is eric mar, the chair. to my right is vice chair supervisor cohen, to my left is supervisor scott wiener. we are also joined by supervisor olage >> items acted upon today will appear on the december 11 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. colleagues, we
6:01am
have 7 items on the agenda. i'm going to ask if there is no objection if we could take no. 7 as a courtesy to supervisor olage to hear that item first. are there any objections? miss miller, could you please call item 7. >> item 7 is a resolution to appear the sharp park golf course from the natural area plan. >> thank you, we have supervisor christine that olage >> at this point we are not going to be continuing this and i would ask that we continue it to the call of the chair. >> if there are no comments, let's open this up to public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak to this item? we're going to limit this to two minutes per person.
6:02am
>> i'm just wondering what does this do in a couple sentences, the proposal. >> perhaps supervisor olage --. >> i'll just read from the agenda itself. if you'd like to set up a time we can talk about it. >> cuttinging environmental review down? >> generally this is not an interactive one here. you can give your testimony. >> well, i want to get it on the record. how else can i get it on the record. >> issue your concerns and we can set up a time to speak about it. >> well, you won't tell me what it is and you won't tell me if it's cutting environmental regulations, so what am i supposed to say up here, then? >> basically what it is, is a resolution to remove all management from the sharp park report from the eir report for the san francisco rec and park department significant natural resources area management plan
6:03am
and to consider proposals -- it would be separating it out. so it doesn't really --. >> shorten the environmental review. >> no, just changing the process, whatever. >> thank you, supervisor olage is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we continue this to the call of the chair without objection? supervisor wiener. >> perhaps we should table it instead of continuing it to the call of the chair unless there's someone who is going to be pursuing --. >> not that i'm aware of. >> then it might make better sense to table it and if someone wants to pursue it in the future, they can do that. is that a problem? >> i don't think it's a problem. >> so, supervisor olage, your motion is to table the item. >> sure. >> colleagues, can we do this without objection? supervisor olage will come back for item
6:04am
3, i believe. thank you. miss miller, please call item 1. >> item 1 is a resolution overturning the department of public works recommendation for disapproval and granting permission to encroach on the public right of way at 10niantic avenue. >> thank you, we have a rep from the department of public works. >> 10 nianic is a project that is very interesting in scope. they were issued a building permit around 2005 for the construction of a single unit building. at that point i would like to provide you with this overhead. at that point the building permits show a property line that is in this
6:05am
initial triangular section as you can see here. and the building permit was approved by review by planning along with the building department. we received the package for the improvements right of way and proceeded with the review. we were informed afterwards that in 2000 as part of another development, title was acquired for this hatched portion of the public right of way and transferred to the city as public right of way. therefore, we have found out that the building was now constructed approximately 3 feet over the prompt -- property line on the ground floor and 6 feet over the property line via the bay window. at that point we informed the applicant you have one of two choices, either go through a major encroachment process which we're doing now or alternatively go through a street vacation process so they
6:06am
can maintain the building fully inside their property line. we found out from planning that the vacation of public right of way is typically in contradiction to the general plan and therefore they requested us to go through this major encroachment process. the department in its evaluation does not believe this would necessarily be an appropriate permit for either the city or the applicant specifically. this permit will only grant a license to the property owner to maintain this and it would definitely place a cloud on the title, which may impact future sales and/or refinancing of that property. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you. this matter is sort of perplexing to me in a number of ways and i don't know that you are going to necessarily have all the answers. are you here for this matter? is anyone from
6:07am
planning or dbi here? >> i don't believe so. >> i'm just curious to know how this happened. i mean i guess, from what i understand, when the plan was submitted the property line between the private and the city's property may not have accurate -- apparently did not accurately reflect reality and i know that it's not like a surveyer goes out for each and every planning application that's submited, but i was just curious to know how this happened. i know you are not necessarily in the best position because you are involved through the planning process or the dbi process that came to dpw because of this problem, but it seems like an odd situation. >> you are quite correct, supervisor wiener. it is a very odd situation because the inform we were provided
6:08am
initially from a 2010 survey showed the historic property line. okay, and what happened is again back in 2000 a portion of that was transferred, acquired and transferred to the city as right of way and that was not identified in the map. so it appears to be some form of error that happened at that stage that really no one caught on the development team. >> thank you. >> thank you. so there is no one from planing that's here and let's open this up for public comment if there are no other questions. supervisor wiener. >> yeah, i mean i'd be a bit uncomfortable acting on this
6:09am
without getting more information from planning and dbi, but i'm curious to hear public comments. >> and i'll just say up front as well that it's a confusing case, especially that we don't have planning here to explain more and i realize that even dbw's analysis here, i'm kupb fuetzd as well, but maybe the project sponsor and others can shed some light. but i don't feel like i have enough information as well. so, colleagues, let's open -- oh, supervisor cohen. >> we can open it up. >> let's open it up for public comment, two minutes per person. >> high name is glen hipatiama and i'm a concerned citizen from this neighborhood about 10 blocks from 10 niantic. i'm strongly against this resolution to overturn this
6:10am
encroachment because it sits on a lot that is too small to be built and is 3 feet into a public right of way on one side. what i've been told, encroaches several feet on a property line to the south side where the builder has eliminated a 5-foot easement between the two properties. i'd like to reiterate what was on the dpw report, that the encroachment is not an appropriate use of public right of way. there is no safe pass for travel of pedestrians separating them from vehicular traffic. ocean view village sits right behind that and a lot of people who live there take niantic to get to the bart station. the bay window is too low and leaves little or no room for emergency vehicles to access the properties on panama street, which i think if the city is concerned about safety, this is a very big issue and i
6:11am
think should be taken into consideration. yes, an error was made, but the city cannot allow this incompetency to be rewarded by a slap on the wrist. i think it goes to issues that affect the entire city and how things are looked at when errors are made and what the city incorporates. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. if anyone would like to speak, i do see we have cards, i'm sorry, that was glen hatayama i also see there is steve ide and mark christianson. >> yes, my name is steve ide and i live in the neighborhood. i'm here to urge the land use and economic committee to say no to this resolution. this probably should never have been built in the first place and needs to be removed. in
6:12am
addition to the fact the property encroaches in the right of way it is stated the property is a single family home, but the owner-building, according to neighbors' complaints, has divided the property into 3 units with 3 families living on the property. the owner has done the same thing with properties in other places in our neighborhood on panama and head street. he owns them as single family homes, as required by code. neighbors have complained about 10 niantic's excessive parking and there is no sidewalk on either side of niantic and residents from ocean view village and daly -- daily have to take bart have only one choice, to
6:13am
walk along the street along niantic. this has been brought to the attention of caltrans and dtp with no resolution. it is not okay for property owners to pay their way out of situations such as this and the city to turn its back on issues that are written to protect the rights of its citizens. please reject this resolution. >> thank you, mr. christianson. >> yes, hello, i'm mark christianson, nearby neighbor. regarding this property it was sold to lee an lee and at the time of the sale mr. tom gianella specifically told the purchaser it was too small to build on. yet plans were submitted and approved on the undersized lot. the structure is built and lo and behold it
6:14am
was determined that it shouldn't have been built in the first place because, a, a portion of the building encroaches 3 feet in the public right of way, 6 feet at level 2, and also the other side of the building encroaches on property lying on mr. gianella's property. he has a lawsuit pending. these two factors along with the size of the lot to begin with should have halted construction of the building. not only that it is subdivided into 3 units, totally illegal. not only that, the owner-developer failed to complete the building with sidewalk in front of the building. as of today there is still no sidewalk. lee an lee continues to laugh about this all the way to the bank. wow. now, despite the serious building code violations the resolution before you is going to reward the owners with a small annual assessment and reward the city with a small
6:15am
cash payment. is this how serious building code violations are handled? this resolution is disgusting. let me just summarize, please, one second? we shall soon see how developers circumvent the codes of the law and are rewarded for their callous disregard for the laws of san francisco. this resolution should be rejected, building inspectors should be out there tomorrow citing existing code violations and further compassionately the 10 amounts should be evicted, given time to vacate, and the building torn down. the building department shoulders part of the blame for this. thank you very much, they should be held accountable. >> thank you, is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak? if there's anyone else that would like to speak, please come forward. >> ronald irvine, i grew up on
6:16am
clem street, i've been away for a while. i don't know the rules, am i allowed to ask who sponsored this to bring it to this chamber? >> you have up to two minutes to speak. >> there's no one listed. everyone else has a sponsor. >> it's not an engaging process, just use your time to speak. >> i come from kleplt street, we were at the police commission, there's too much encroachment going on over the sidewalks in this city. this is a bad precedent. i'm concerned about this city becoming like new york or hong kong where it's frantic development development development, anyone can do anything, go on the sidewalk, do this, if you know somebody you get to do this. i'm against this and also want to clear up the rules at a later time. >> thank you, is there anyone else who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is
6:17am
closed. please line up either on the side of the room, we're going to close public comment in a moment, but please come forward. >> this the right spot? >> yes. >> i've never done this before. i haven't read anything up on this. regarding the overlap into the portion of the property, you should request him to detail his reasons for going over into the other property and review the type of lease he has before you decide whether you are approving or not approving. that's all. >> thank you, ma'am. so if there's no other public comment we're going to close public comment. mr. kwan, could you please come forward, i know there's a number of questions that were raised, could you do your best
6:18am
to answer those questions? >> thank you, supervisors, john kwan from the department of public works once again. it is a very -- the public comments were on a variety of comments in this specific case. the majority of it happened to relate to the building itself which really falls under either building department or planning jurisdiction as it relates to what they are describing, which we have no control or ability to preside over specifically, so i would refer that back to both the department of building inspection and the planning department for review. as relates to this building permit, there is a lot of very complicated review on this. the building permit was applied for in 2004 and at the time of submital to planning and
6:19am
building, they did show a survey -- they did show a survey that shows the existing property line to be what it was historically. it did not take into consideration, as i stated again, the 2000 board resolution that accepted the excess portion of the public right of way which they are now encroaching. i don't know exactly what happened during the building permit process but both planning and building department approved the design. we are required to review the infrastructure, which involved the kin strux of a sidewalk along nianic to the official sidewalk width, which they have. there are no sidewalks along panama. there has been comments from the public related to the lack of travel on niantic street as relates to access to the bart station. i
6:20am
know the department of public works is currently working with the california department of public transportation, with caltrans, to see whether a sidewalk can be constructed adjacent to the freeway side of niantic. it is under continued discussion with caltrans at this point. honestly from the department's perspective, we were given this information kind of after the fact, after the building permit was approved, after construction had begun and well underway before we found out this issue. really there is only one of two alternatives right now to the property owner barring the demolition of this building. one is the major encroachment permit which is in front of you. the alternative is to vacate or purchase that portion of the right of way so that it's part of their building, part of their property now, and then they would be made -- then the applicant and the city would be
6:21am
made whole by them paying a fair market value for this piece of land. i'm not sure whether that answers all your questions. >> so we have some comments. supervisor cohen and then supervisor wiener. >> thank you very much. mr. kwan, do you have any idea what the range would be of fair market value for the hundred feet of encroachment that this property owner has done. >> honest truth, the department won't know and that's why the applicant would need to engage the department of real estate to find out what the fair market value would be. >> supervisor wiener. >> is the owner of the property or project sponsor here? >> i don't believe so. i believe the agent that processed this permit is here but i'm not sure whether they have anything significant that they can add at this point. >> the owner of the property
6:22am
or representative isn't planning to address this committee? >> i do not see him present at this point. >> they are requesting the encroachment. okay. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you, i wasn't quite finished yet. supervisor wiener actually asked one of the questions that -- no, it's okay -- that was on the tip of my tongue, where is the property owner? i find it very interesting, we're deliberating on a matter and the property owner is not here, they have not engaged with my office nor supervisor wiener's office. i am inclined to request that dpw and planning come back, that we reject this resolution and that they come back with a street vacation rather than a major encroachment. i think that might be the best alternative course of action which you have outlined today here at the podium. so, mr. chair, i don't know if there's any more -- looks like
6:23am
supervisor wiener wants --. >> if we were, if the board was to reject the major encroachment are they able, i assume they could, if they wanted to, try to apply again in the future? >> yes, the applicant can reapply at some point in the future but normally on these rejections i believe they cannot reapply for one year. it still creates this problem where the building i believe was never final. they have a temporary certificate of occupancy that they are currently sitting on. i don't know right now. again, i leave that to the building department. from my understanding, based upon what the public have stated, that there are actually people residing in this building. >> and any negotiations to purchase the right of way that's been encroached on, that would also -- i know there are issues with the general plan, but that would also have to
6:24am
come to the board of supervisors for approval, correct? >> correct, that would be an ordinance that would come back to the full board of supervisors. >> what would happen if there were no approval, the encroachment permit or the major encroachment and if there were no sale, either because you couldn't come to terms or because the board did not accept it, what happens in that situation? i know there's a cloud on the title, right? >> the department would normally engage with the department of building inspection, the building is constructed outside the property line, and let the building department take appropriate action because it's currently defined as an unpermitted encroachment. >> how many people are in this building. >> the permit states it is a one family unit. >> i've heard there may be
6:25am
more than one family. >> according to the building department documentation it is a one family dwelling. if there are suggestions there is more than one family, maybe subdivided, i have to refer back to the building department. >> how long has it been occupied now, do we know? >> i was unaware it was occupied. i'm hearing this after the fact in many cases. >> question for the city attorney, in terms of the actions we can take today and what would constitute a full rejection as opposed to -- what are our options? >> tom gitner, deputy city attorney. basically your options are you can adopt the resolution approving the encroachment overturning the department's decision. you can approve a resolution rejecting -- or rejecting the encroachment and approving the department's decision. those are basically your two options.
6:26am
you could continue the matter for further information and if you are inclined to reject the encroachment, i'd also probably recommend that you continue it so that we can work with the department to prepare a new resolution. the resolution before you would have to be changed somewhat significantly. >> to reject? >> to reject, right. >> and if we table the matter? >> clarification. >> and if we were to table the item what would the effect be? >> it would -- let me look. i believe the effect would, the practical effect would be that the department's decision would stand. i don't believe there's a particular timeline for the board to act on the matter. give me one second to look. >> okay. we could also continue to the call of the chair, would that be another option?
6:27am
>> yes. >> so supervisor cohen had started to make a motion. it sounds like mr. gibner is giving us a number of options. i think we need to give dpw a chance to think about how this ordinance may be modified. i heard a suggestion also from supervisor cohen to reject the proposal before us as well, but i'd like to know kind of what the wishes of the body is. >> if i were to vote today, i would vote to reject it. we do have an option to continuing to the call of the chair to get more information, but i'm not, i don't have a strong opinion between the two, although it sounds like we don't have a resolution disapproving it before us and so does that mean that we're not capable of
6:28am
rejecting it today? >> you can amend the resolution that's before you to reject and we could work with the department after the meeting to make sure that that -- what the committee is asking for gets into the resolution. it will be a number of changes. like you said, you could make that vote today, take that vote today. >> i'm curious to know what my colleagues think. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you, i just wanted to reiterate my original question. my discussions with the department, specifically the department of dpw, it would be, they would agree to us rejecting this and sending it back and asking to come back with a street vacation rather than a major encroachment. so that's the course of action i would like to propose that we take today. >> so that sounds to me like it's a motion to reject this resolution.
6:29am
>> yes. >> amend the resolution as a rejection. >> amend the resolution as a rejection. >> mr. gibner indicated that the resolution before us to --. >> either up or down. >> is to approve the encroachment. i think it would require a motion to amend the resolution to reject and then to forward that resolution to the board. >> correct. >> so there's a motion -- there is an amendment to the table to reject. are there any objections? so -- and then on the motion itself as amended to reject, are there any objections? >> that would be to forward the amended resolution to the board with a recommendation to adopt it. >> yes. so without objection. thank you. thank you, mr. gibner. miss miller, could you please